bioMSAR: towards a net-zero future
The pursuit of a Net-Zero future has created a ‘space-race’ within the marine industry. Potential nearer term greenhouse gas (‘GHG’) savings, along with other environmental benefits, are being sacrificed as investment by the marine industry focuses on more challenging and speculative long-term options such as hydrogen, ammonia and methanol.
The Value of Transition Fuels
In order to see immediate and significant reductions in GHG emissions across the marine industry, a rapid uptake of ‘transition fuels’ is required.
Transition fuels bridge the gap between today’s carbon intensive fuel oil powered fleets to the Net-Zero fleets of tomorrow, and as they are readily available, they allow GHG savings to be made immediately.
In this blog, Quadrise compares the most commonly used transition fuels, LNG and FAME to our own biofuel, bioMSAR™, focusing on five key metrics:
- GHG emissions savings
- Relative cost per unit energy
- Feedstock availability
- Fuel storage and handling
- Safety
1. GHG emissions
Well-to-wake (‘WTW’) emissions account for all greenhouse gas releases (expressed as a “CO2 equivalent” value) from fuel extraction, manufacture, storage, supply and final combustion for propulsion or power.
On a WTW basis, bioMSAR™, FAME and LNG all provide CO2 savings of 10-25% when compared to fuel oils. However, LNG has a significant drawback: ‘Methane slip’. Methane slip is when methane escapes from the fuel transport or combustion system into the atmosphere. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas[1], with a global warming potential 21-86 times that of CO2. As a result, CO2 equivalent savings with LNG range from 10-20% typically.
FAME has a CO2 equivalent content c.25-50% that of fuel oil, depending on the origin. CO2 equivalent savings resulting from FAME use are typically 10-25%, determined by the amount of FAME in the biofuel blend (max. 50%).
bioMSAR™ offers CO2 equivalent savings of 10-50%, by incorporating renewable glycerine, a by-product of biodiesel and FAME manufacture. As with MSAR®, bioMSAR™ improves engine efficiency by up to 10% due to the higher combustion efficiency resulting from the smaller fuel droplets, further reducing GHG emissions.
2. Cost per unit energy
Until recently, LNG was the cheapest transition fuel on a cost per unit energy basis, due to the economies of scale resulting from production in large volumes. However, LNG prices can fluctuate dramatically, with US hub prices rising over 200% since 2020[2], and prices in Europe and Asia even higher.
In addition, the costs of handling LNG are up to 40% higher than for fuel oil due to the capital and operating costs required to deliver, store and handle LNG as well as the required modifications to the vessel engine and fuel supply systems.
As with all biofuels, the cost of FAME has increased 2-3 times since 2020 due to the decline in supply during the pandemic. Future increased demand from the marine sector may result in costs increasing even further.
Whilst the price of the crude glycerine used in bioMSAR™ has also increased, by a similar factor to FAME, the cost of bioMSAR™ remains lower per unit energy.
3. Feedstock availability
LNG for marine is not hindered by feedstock availability, with promising scale-up opportunities stemming from its largescale global production. However, there is also strong demand for LNG for heating and power, and from the petrochemical industries, leading to increased competition and cost pressures. Availability of LNG bunkering facilities is not yet widespread outside of the main bunker hubs.
Both FAME and crude glycerine are produced in significantly lower quantities than LNG. Where FAME use in the marine sector has strong competition from the aviation and road transport sectors, there is no similar fuel competition for glycerine, as only Quadrise has the technology to blend glycerine with oil and residues to produce bioMSAR™ using our innovative and patented MSAR® Technology.
Quadrise is assessing options to increase fuel-grade glycerine production, and is currently conducting research into producing glycerine via algae and yeast, as well as investigating blends of other renewable fuels.
4. Fuel storage and handling
Fuels that are complex to handle or which require increased storage capacity will have higher implementation costs and reduced practicality.
Due to its low energy density in cryogenic tanks, a considerable 80% more storage capacity is required for LNG in new tanks compared to fuel oil. LNG must then be maintained in its cooled (-164°C) state which results in further storge complications. These factors increase the storage costs as well as reduce the vessel’s cargo transport capacity.
Obstacles with LNG handling include the pressures required to maintain the fuel at a sub-zero temperature and the management of heat ingress and methane release along its supply-chain.
FAME and bioMSAR™ require only minor modifications to on board fuel handling systems, and require much lower additional storage capacity than LNG. The additional 20-30% bioMSAR™ capacity required is reduced when factoring in the decreased fuel consumption, due to higher combustion efficiencies in larger diesel engines.
The increased solvency of FAME blends may dislodge old sludge deposits causing blockage with filters and damage to fuel pumps[3]. FAME blending may also result in fuel solidification in onboard storage tanks, especially over extended storage periods.
As with MSAR®, bioMSAR™ is compatible with existing onboard fuel oil systems, with no significant vessel modifications required to transition to their use, and none of the risks of fuel blockages posed by FAME. The stable emulsion fuels can be stored at atmospheric pressure and pumped efficiently at ambient temperatures.
5. Safety
Compared to current marine fuels, bioMSAR™ offers considerably reduced risk as glycerine is bio-degradable, non-toxic and non-flammable. In the unlikely event of a fuel spill, both MSAR® and bioMSAR™ readily disperse in water due to the pre-atomised nature of the oil droplets in the fuel.
FAME is considered non-hazardous to humans and the environment; however FAME blends will not disperse as readily as MSAR®/bioMSAR™ in water, due to its lower solubility.
For LNG, stringent safety measures are required to maintain its liquid state, as in its gaseous form natural gas is highly flammable and presents a significant explosive risk. Any fugitive or accidental release of methane has an extremely detrimental impact to global warming.
Future “Net-Zero” fuels
Hydrogen, ammonia and methanol are currently seen as the frontrunners in the race to produce a net-zero marine fuel, although none of these green fuels are truly net-zero today without carbon offsetting. Whilst these may turn out to be viable in the long-term, each must overcome significant challenges in the nearer-term.
Hydrogen and ammonia’s low volume energy density and high-risk safety concerns pose enormous challenges with the storage and handling of these fuels. Both fuels are scalable and have large markets, however the cost of production from renewable sources (known as green hydrogen and green ammonia) are currently very high and require enormous levels of investment into renewable power generation from wind or solar which will not be available for many years.
Methanol requires large-scale biomass gasification to produce ‘bio-methanol’ or carbon-capture to produce ‘blue methanol’. “Green methanol” production requires considerable investment in new renewable energy (~50MW per container ship requires 200-500MW new wind/solar capacity). Currently, due to limited commercial applications and challenging technological and infrastructure requirements, blue and green methanol will not be available for some time at scale.
Quadrise is in the development stages of creating our first zero-carbon biofuel, bioMSAR™ Zero. bioMSAR™ Zero will replace the heavy residue component of MSAR® and bioMSAR™ with a fully renewable fuel source, whilst delivering the same substantial benefits to engine efficiency and emissions. Our goal is to deliver a commercially competitive Net-Zero emulsion fuel by 2030.
Summary
In its attempts to fully decarbonise the sector, the marine industry must be cautious that its space-race to Net-Zero does not ignore the significant GHG reductions that can currently be achieved by investing in the deployment and use of transition fuels.
When compared to LNG and FAME, bioMSAR™ offers significant advantages:
- Higher CO2 savings and improved engine efficiency
- A lower fuel cost per unit energy
- No competition for biofuel or gas feedstock
- Low-cost implementation
- Low safety risks, including no methane slip
With Quadrise currently in discussions with MSC Shipmanagement, regarding bioMSAR™ trials on container vessels in 2022, we are excited to be playing a leading role in helping the marine industry to achieve its decarbonisation goals whilst achieving significant cost savings.
[1] UN Economic commission of Europe
[2] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9133us3m.htm
